Moderation Discussion (No complaints against members)

[Dream]

Retitled the thread from "Disruptive Users" to make its purpose clearer. - UrsusArctos


If this isn't the right way to bring up these concerns, i apologize.

So, the "Masturbating on top of a comatose body" thread has been locked. This is sad, but unsurprising and probably inevitable by that point. There's just one thing i don't really understand though: To me it seems that most of the undesirable aspects of the thread were caused by one or two members who kept posting contrarian and disruptive opinions (likely intentionally) and that is what sent the thread into a downward spiral. I can't avoid wondering, wouldn't it have been much better to just move the tangent to somewhere else, like the graveyard. Or just ban the disruptive user? Or even if banning him wasn't an option, i think a mod could have just said something like "Hey Bryan, here's a thought: Don't post in this thread again" (At least, it works very well on another forum i frequent). I believe that there were a couple better ways to deal with the problems in that thread, but i apologize again if there is some underlying reason i'm not aware of for staff to have acted the way they did.

It's just rather sad that we all have to lose a thread that kept some interesting discussion within it just because of the disruptive actions of a bunch of people.

[Anonymous_Evafan]

You never met MaggotMaster, V, or Zuggy did you? People won't be banned for 1 thread. I'm sure they ended up on a watch list for what happened but locking that thread was the best solution. If anything it should have happened earlier.

[Dream]

Honestly, i fail to see why locking the thread and depriving everyone of it was in any way better than removing the man behind the problem. So i'll ask why do you believe that locking the thread was the best solution.

[UrsusArctos]

We don't ban people for the sake of it. As for that thread, the admin who locked the thread (Reichu) probably decided that there was no further productive discussion to be had in that thread, with or without the participation of the trouble-making members.

We would all like to have good discussion on serious topics, even those which deal with Evangelion's controversial aspects. However, we also need to judge whether or not we can let such discussion continue in the presence of members who might either be (a)offended by the content or (b) determined to have fun at the cost of ruining the thread.

It's actually impressive that the thread lasted as long as it did, given the half-life of threads on this kind of topic on this forum.

[Nuclear Lunchbox]

Granted, the thread was continually lapsing into the pretty unfruitful rape discussion. However, there would be some pretty good posts about Shinji's character that showed up every now and then. Would it be frowned on if I were to create a new topic that was geared toward the more productive things that we were talking about?

[riffraff11235]

Would it be frowned on if I were to create a new topic that was geared toward the more productive things that we were talking about?

How would we prevent such a thread from going the way of the first one? I doubt putting a simple warning in the OP would suffice....

[Nuclear Lunchbox]

How would we prevent such a thread from going the way of the first one? I doubt putting a simple warning in the OP would suffice....

Actually, the majority of people tend to follow the rules. If we get one or two troublemakers, they'll be overwhelmed by the amount of people that actually care about the topic. As long as I get a go-ahead from a mod, that is.

[Trajan]

Honestly, the thread looked pretty unsalvageable by that point. When threads get that hostile, locking them is like a mercy killing IMO.

[riffraff11235]

When threads get that hostile, locking them is like a mercy killing IMO.

As Reichu's forum-locking post stated, yes.

[Trajan]

As Reichu's forum-locking post stated, yes.

It's not like there were just one or two people anyways. There was plenty of abrasiveness to go around based on my observations.

[Nuclear Lunchbox]

It's not like there were just one or two people anyways. There was plenty of abrasiveness to go around based on my observations.

After the initial wave of hate, people started calming down a little and posting things that were somewhat productive. The problem was that the same people kept coming back and being inflammatory.

[Lavinius]

May I ask if I am being counted among the disruptive and inflammatory?

[Nuclear Lunchbox]

May I ask if I am being counted among the disruptive and inflammatory?

When you left, Bryan took over in your absence. I'm afraid I have to answer in the affirmative here.

[Bagheera]

I think thread bans are a pretty good policy, personally, but they'd be hard to police in a relatively unstructured environment like EvaGeeks. They'd also open the mods to all sorts of criticism, and since they already get a lot of undeserved flak just for doing their jobs I can see why they wouldn't be champing at the bit to take on something like that. Best to kill the offending thread and let people start new ones if they can find ways to do it without creating the same problem (gods know we've found plenty of ways to discuss Shinji and his problems without descending into absurd rape discussions, so there's no reason we can't do it again).

[Trajan]

To be honest, after reading through the thread, I think page four was when things went off the rails and everyone deserves share of the blame. While I don't agree with what Lavinius was posting, he certainly didn't deserve the reaction it provoked.

[Nuclear Lunchbox]

To be honest, after reading through the thread, I think page four was when things went off the rails and everyone deserves share of the blame. While I don't agree with what Lavinius was posting, he certainly didn't deserve the reaction it provoked.

Yep. Things definitely went down the shitter at that point. And while what Lavinius was saying may not have provoked the response it got, sometimes that's just the form that extreme disagreement takes.

[Trajan]

So maybe we should all try to learn from this and not get offended so easily and so quickly in the future instead of calling for certain people to be banned because we disagree with their opinion?

[Nuclear Lunchbox]

So maybe we should all try to learn from this and not get offended so easily and so quickly in the future instead of calling for certain people to be banned because we disagree with their opinion?

There was calling for bans? I didn't hear about this. But to answer your point, yes; we should all try to keep our tempers in check. Myself included, of course; I have a tendency to become incensed easily.

[Trajan]

There was calling for bans? I didn't hear about this. But to answer your point, yes; we should all try to keep our tempers in check. Myself included, of course; I have a tendency to become incensed easily.

First post in this thread.

To me it seems that most of the undesirable aspects of the thread were caused by one or two members who kept posting contrarian and disruptive opinions (likely intentionally) and that is what sent the thread into a downward spiral. I can't avoid wondering, wouldn't it have been much better to just move the tangent to somewhere else, like the graveyard. Or just ban the disruptive user? Or even if banning him wasn't an option, i think a mod could have just said something like "Hey Bryan, here's a thought: Don't post in this thread again"

[Nuclear Lunchbox]

First post in this thread.

Not really calling for a ban, but I see your point.